By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,648 Members | 1,199 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,648 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

So - does everyone agree?

P: n/a
I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS. One was
suggested, which I didn't care for. But are there any others?

Can anyone, rather than negatively complain, actually and positively
point to an actual example, on the web, of what they consider to be an
outstanding example of the use of style sheets?

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS.


Yes, just 2 days ago. Is there some reason why you decided to repose the
question? Didn't like the answers you got the first time?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS.
Yes, just 2 days ago. Is there some reason why you decided to repose the
question? Didn't like the answers you got the first time?


I just said that. What three or four sites can _you_ think of that you
consider just the best use of style sheets that you've ever seen?
bar-none.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<er********************************@4ax.com>. ..
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS.

Yes, just 2 days ago. Is there some reason why you decided to repose the
question? Didn't like the answers you got the first time?


I just said that. What three or four sites can _you_ think of that you
consider just the best use of style sheets that you've ever seen?
bar-none.


I don't know what the responses to your original question were. But
The PGA championship site is one that is frequently cited as an
excellent example of design:

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/

Wired and ESPN are also modernized to use css & web standards:

http://msn.espn.go.com/
http://www.wired.com/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
sp*******@marx7.org (Trent) wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<er********************************@4ax.com>. ..
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS.

>Yes, just 2 days ago. Is there some reason why you decided to repose the
>question? Didn't like the answers you got the first time?


I just said that. What three or four sites can _you_ think of that you
consider just the best use of style sheets that you've ever seen?
bar-none.


I don't know what the responses to your original question were. But
The PGA championship site is one that is frequently cited as an
excellent example of design:

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/


It may be a good use of graphic design, but a fixed-width page is not
an exemplary use of CSS.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:ae********************************@4ax.com...
sp*******@marx7.org (Trent) wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<er********************************@4ax.com>. ..
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> I had asked what might be examples of good design using CSS.

>Yes, just 2 days ago. Is there some reason why you decided to repose the >question? Didn't like the answers you got the first time?

I just said that. What three or four sites can _you_ think of that you
consider just the best use of style sheets that you've ever seen?
bar-none.


I don't know what the responses to your original question were. But
The PGA championship site is one that is frequently cited as an
excellent example of design:

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/


It may be a good use of graphic design, but a fixed-width page is not
an exemplary use of CSS.


I am sure you did not mention the fixed font size to prevent another flame
war ;-)

--
Markus
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Trent wrote:
The PGA championship site is one that is frequently cited as an
excellent example of design:

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/


A quick assessment with Lynx suggests that it's quite adaptable, which
is a lot better than most commercial offerings. But I'm puzzled that
they would make this mistake - or rather, cluster of mistakes -

<img
src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/pgacom.pgachamp/;sz=468x60;tile=4;ord=12
+3456789?" width="468" height="60" border="0" alt="Ad: Click here for
more info" />Ad: Click here for more info</a>

- (apologies for the line-folding in this posting) producing, of course:

Ad: Click here for more info Ad: Click here for more info

The alt text should clearly be alt="", rather than duplicating the
text that's there anyway. And do I need to mention the dreaded "click
here" disease?

The text really says nothing. It could be an advert for hamburgers,
or condoms, we really have no idea. Presumably, the underlying problem
here is that the ads get rotated, so that the process that's inserting
them has no idea what product the image will be advertising, and has
to insert some uninformative dummy text instead. So -that- part of
the problem needs to be solved somewhere else, if the WAI guidelines
are to be achieved (the *real* content of the page as I got it was
"Get 2 free trial issues ...", and the ad-insertion process needs
re-engineering to cope with that issue, if the WAI is to be taken
seriously).

The graphical design appears to be fixed-width (which in my language
is no kind of compliment!), and on my 135dpi display I get microfonts
with low-contrast colours. It needs a couple of ctrl/+ strokes
before I'm comfortable with it. Which is not to detract from the
good points of the design. Ho hum.

And blind golfers certainly exist.
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
/Harlan Messinger/:
sp*******@marx7.org (Trent) wrote:
http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/


It may be a good use of graphic design, but a fixed-width page is not
an exemplary use of CSS.


Yes, but the page doesn't incorporate any (or just at minimum)
inline style attributes ('style' and other HTML presentational
attributes) which makes it very easy for one to switch off the
author styles, even in IE with the ease of simple "scriplet". This
one is very good approach for better accessibility, IMHO - currently
UAs can't switch off inline styles and presentational markup easily,
but that's not the case with separated style sheets (either embedded
or external).

The only flaw this page has is that in IE (as the most used browser)
the text zoom doesn't work (for known reasons) and the fixed font
size used is pretty unsatisfactory, at least for me. In this aspect
I've proposed a workaround couple of times in this group but I don't
want to start a discussing it again.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de...
/Harlan Messinger/:
sp*******@marx7.org (Trent) wrote:
http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/


It may be a good use of graphic design, but a fixed-width page is not
an exemplary use of CSS.


Yes, but the page doesn't incorporate any (or just at minimum)
inline style attributes ('style' and other HTML presentational
attributes) which makes it very easy for one to switch off the
author styles, even in IE with the ease of simple "scriplet".


LOL. When candidates are cited for "best use of CSS-based design", I would
hope that "ease of turning off when it looks bad" wouldn't be a leading
criterion.

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
/Harlan Messinger/:
LOL. When candidates are cited for "best use of CSS-based design", I would
hope that "ease of turning off when it looks bad" wouldn't be a leading
criterion.


Currently, if you use only inline styles no matter they could be
"best" and they are "CSS" - you would got no nomination. "Looks bad"
and "looks good" are pretty relative and this is one of the main
points to use style sheets - make the content more accessible were
the best shot is the ability to switch off the author styles.

Of course once UAs got powerful enough to override any author
designsh*t this would be no issue, anymore.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:
/Harlan Messinger/:
LOL. When candidates are cited for "best use of CSS-based design", I would
hope that "ease of turning off when it looks bad" wouldn't be a leading
criterion.


It's akin to saying that the only good style sheet is one you can't
see?
Currently, if you use only inline styles no matter they could be
"best" and they are "CSS" - you would got no nomination. "Looks bad"
and "looks good" are pretty relative and this is one of the main
points to use style sheets - make the content more accessible were
the best shot is the ability to switch off the author styles.
So there is no good use, no best-of, design based on CSS? It's rather
that the best thing for everyone is the ability not to view style
sheets, at all? What did you otherwise mean, then, by "best shot is
the ability"?

Of course once UAs got powerful enough to override any author
designsh*t this would be no issue, anymore.


So your complaint isn't with style sheets, but with the other guy's -
no matter who? Are you suggesting the only good style sheet is the one
you would use for override purposes? Not everyone requires this
buzzword - 'accessibility'. Not everyone has difficultly discerning
color, or requires black on white, or extremely large fonts, and the
rest. Might it be that some are better at designing pages and style
sheets? I tend to think others are better at it, depending, and just
in my opinion. Maybe not always - but . . sometimes? I don't see the
need to have to turn off everyone's style sheet that I see on the web.
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Trent wrote:
The PGA championship site is one that is frequently cited as an
excellent example of design: http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2004/

A quick assessment with Lynx suggests that it's quite adaptable, which
is a lot better than most commercial offerings. But I'm puzzled that
they would make this mistake - or rather, cluster of mistakes -


Well, then, what page doesn't have a "cluster of mistakes"? What,
positively, in your opinion, is a page or site which just 'gets it',
when it comes to style sheets? And please leave out any 'accessbility'
site. I think that's completely overdone. It's important. But it's not
100% of the reason for style sheets, by any means. What's the URL of
an outstanding example, given that?
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
/Mark Johnson/:
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:
Currently, if you use only inline styles no matter they could be
"best" and they are "CSS" - you would got no nomination. "Looks bad"
and "looks good" are pretty relative and this is one of the main
points to use style sheets - make the content more accessible were
the best shot is the ability to switch off the author styles.


So there is no good use, no best-of, design based on CSS? It's rather
that the best thing for everyone is the ability not to view style
sheets, at all? What did you otherwise mean, then, by "best shot is
the ability"?


I suggest "best CSS design" alone can't be any serious stuff - what
you would rate, the graphics design of the visual (and CSS are not
all for visual appearance) principal boxes of the elements in the
content document?

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:
/Mark Johnson/:
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:
Currently, if you use only inline styles no matter they could be
"best" and they are "CSS" - you would got no nomination. "Looks bad"
and "looks good" are pretty relative and this is one of the main
points to use style sheets - make the content more accessible were
the best shot is the ability to switch off the author styles.
So there is no good use, no best-of, design based on CSS? It's rather
that the best thing for everyone is the ability not to view style
sheets, at all? What did you otherwise mean, then, by "best shot is
the ability"?
I suggest "best CSS design" alone can't be any serious stuff - what
you would rate, the graphics design of the visual (and CSS are not
all for visual appearance) principal boxes of the elements in the
content document?


Does that mean that the ONLY thing you consider valuable in css is the
'accessibility'? Float, position, box model, background, color, etc?
What about all that? Have you just never thought about a design
standard for css, itself, or in support of a page or site? Have you
just never in all your web surfing ever found a page that leaps out at
you as the epitomy of style, as it were?

Maybe you could go at it another way, with more general principles. A
CSS 3 or 4 or 5, even. In theory, what would be the very best use of
CSS on a web page or site? And is there room to experiment and do
things a bit differently from a norm, whatever you think that norm
happens to be?

Jul 20 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.